Climate-smart landscapes are an emerging concept that captures integration
of actions and processes in a Participatory community meeting, Niger. Photo credit:Mahamane Larwanougiven place. This integration is geared towards
reducing emissions and enhancing ability to cope with already existing negative
effects of climate change while at the same time pursuing multiple social,
economic and environmental objectives.

In the past, integrated management initiatives have shared similar
ambition and provide lessons for implementation.

In a chapter of a new book titled Climate-Smart
Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice, we study the example of gestion de terroirs (GT), which was an
integrated management approach applied in French speaking African countries in
the 1990’s.

The GT approach was meant to advance goals
related to food production, ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods on a
socially and geographically defined space – the so-called ‘terroir’. It shared a
number of similar features with climate-smart landscapes in terms of being a multisectoral,
multidisciplinary and multistakeholder approach.

A number of key limitations, challenges and
experiences from the GT approach offer lessons for the climate-smart landscape
approach.

One limitation of the GT approach was that the
geographical area was identified almost exclusively in relation with the practice
of agriculture, ignoring other important livelihoods such as pastoralism. A key
lesson here is that it should not be assumed that community interests are
uniform at the expense of complex social, economic and cultural factors that affect
how local communities can sustainably use natural resources.

Both the GT and climate-smart landscapes approaches
use a bottom-up management style and are community-driven, so multi-stakeholder
planning is a key element. However, experiences with the GT implementation have
at times not achieved proper balance in participation between the local communities,
project staff and government agency representatives, with local communities being
overlooked in technical debates. Another weakness was lack of balance of
interests among stakeholders in the local community due as GT committees seemed
to be dominated by local elites to the exclusion of the poorest and most
marginalized rural populations. According to the study, in order to avoid such
pitfalls, both composition and method of inclusion need to be considered with caution
to ensure effective representation of all stakeholder groups.

Additionally, effective decentralized
governance over land resources is described as a central feature of the GT approach.
However, since the legislation never conferred legal right to community-based
institutions to exercise public authority over their resources, there has been
a huge gap between theory and the reality. As such, if decentralized governance
is to happen within climate-smart landscape approaches, there will first need
to be clear policies outlining who has the authority to make decisions on resources
as well as more reflection on how to transfer authority from central government
authorities to local government staff, and from government structures to local
populations.

Another issue that GT implementation shed light
on, was that attempts for clarifying rights and resource tenure have sometimes
exacerbated existing or latent land-use conflicts, the concept of ‘terroir’ being
sometimes misinterpreted as ‘for locals only’ and instrumentalized to exclude
others in the name of local heritage. To avoid this challenge, there is need
for very carefully negotiated processes and a legitimate conflict resolution and
recourse system that is supported by an improved justice system, accessible courts,
and devolved conciliation powers to local authorities or customary chiefs.

Last but not least, while most GT programmes
took place in a policy and institutional vacuum resulting in very limited
impact on influencing wider institutional and policy issues, there is need for
acknowledging climate-smart landscape approaches within national decision-making
processes. Sustainability of the climate-smart landscape approach will require
supportive policies at multiple scales.

The study is a book chapter in a book titled Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality
in Practice which can be accessed here.

The private sector is an important actor with great
potential to inject financial resources, technology and expertise into climate
smart initiatives that target sustainable development.

These private companies are looking into ways and
strategies for effective engagement out of realization that their existence depends
on finite ecosystem services; and also due to an increase in awareness among
consumers who demand environmental accountability in the production process, as
well as the need to maintain good company reputation through social
responsibility.

This not withstanding, their main drive is to make
profit, and as such, rules of engagement with these private entities have to
make business sense.Vision for Change demonstration plots in Kragui in Côte d’Ivoire. The project aims to revitalise cocoa using a landscape approach that also targets to improve the environment, social aspects and livelihoods. Photo credit: World Agroforestry Centre

In a new book Climate-Smart
Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice to be released this week on
the sidelines of UNFCCC COP 20
in Lima, Peru, three chapters expound on private sector involvement in
landscape approaches using case studies that highlight among others the need to
i) present business case studies to motivate the private sector, ii) enhance
sustainability in agriculture supply chains and iii) use production standards
and certification as a means to private sector engagement in integrated
landscape management approach.

Presenting a business
case will entail a shift from the current focus of analyzing environmental
costs exclusively, to developing analytical tools, methodologies and frameworks
that account for both the natural capital and the business financial goals. It
is a process that involves integrating ecosystem services analysis with
frameworks that drive corporate decision making strategies.

Examples of
initiatives making strides in this direction include the Natural Capital Coalition guide that recommends ways accountants
can frame risks and opportunities in business terms and embed natural capital
into corporate decision-making. “There is also the British American Tobacco
Biodiversity Partnership that has developed the Biodiversity Risk and
Opportunity Assessment (BROA) tool to assess risks and opportunities of
depending on biodiversity and ecosystem services at the landscape scale for
companies with agricultural supply chains,” says Dr Namirembe.

“However, to remain
viable, such holistic analysis of both natural and business capital needs to be
accompanied by conducive policy regulations and institutional frameworks,” says
Dr Sara Namirembe of the World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

She explains this in
the context of Sasumua water shed in Kenya. “Although a conducive business case exists (about
$122,924/year Net Present Value) for Nairobi City Water Company (NWCS) to use payment
of ecosystem services with upland farmers to reduce sedimentation of the Sasumua
reservoir, it cannot be operationalized because of barriers in existing legal
and institutional frameworks. NWCS already pays watershed management fees to
the Water Resource Management Authority. Although a section of consumers in
Nairobi were willing to pay more in their water bill to finance watershed
conservation, the mandate to increase tariffs and is not the NWSC, but with the
water services regulatory board.”

Sustainable business agricultural supply chains

A Landscape approach
can be useful in promoting sustainability in business supply chains particularly
within the agriculture sector. Supply chains refers to all those factors,
processes and actors involved from the production, all through to the
consumption of goods and services. A landscape approach to such a system would
make the businesses involved look beyond their unit area of production and the
profits thereof to encompass economic, environmental, social and other
livelihood aspects. It would mean balancing the need for high production with
reducing negative impacts on the environment; avoiding child labor; and
ensuring farmers get higher wages for their produce.

“Business supply
chains should seek a landscape approach as it not only assures sustainability
but it also helps them mitigate reputational and operational risks,” says Dr
Amos Gyau of ICRAF. “By supporting a sustainable ecosystem from the production
source, they gain consumer confidence and promote continuous supply of high
quality products. Failure to maintain natural capital at source leads to poor
quality and eventual depletion of raw materials,” he adds.

Another important
benefit of embracing landscape approach in supply chains is that it creates space
to form new partnerships and establish collaborations with the public sector
and other players in a way that spreads risks and complements efforts.

The Vision for Change
(V4C) project financed by Mars Inc. and implemented by ICRAF is one model using
landscape approach towards business supply chain sustainability. It aims to revitalize
the cocoa sector in Côte d’Ivoire while at the same time addressing
environmental concerns by promoting trees on farms; and social aspects by eliminating
child labor and making cocoa production more attractive to younger farmers
through income diversification.

Dr Gyau and his
colleagues recommend tools for implementing a sustainable landscape approach in
business supply chains. These include: regional producer support programmes
with activities such as risk assessment, information sharing on one or more
commodities that require going beyond the farm level. There are also multistakeholder
dialogues like the UN Global Compact, which is a strategic policy initiative
for businesses that commit to uphold principles on human rights, labour,
environment and anti-corruption. Tools
on certification standards can be used to implement both vertical integration
through buyer-supplier relationship in which contracted farmers meet certain
standards in production and horizontal integration whereby businesses handling
similar commodities merge to enjoy economies of scale.

In a related chapter, Gabrielle
Kissinger of Lexeme Consulting and his colleagues expound on the use of
certification standards to integrated land management and explore methodologies
using various case studies. They highlight product certification standards as
useful because they require evaluation of a business performance beyond
production to its impact on the surrounding environment. But the main challenge
is that most systems are designed for assessment within the property boundary.

In
combating climate change, interventions have mainly been channeled through two
approaches – mitigation and adaptation. Activities to mitigate climate change
include actions that reduce greenhouse gases and preve­nt further emissions. Adaptation
refers to activities geared towards helping vulnerable communities already
affected by climate change cope and build resilience.Pioneers of Ngitili system in Tanzania discuss how it works. Synergy between adaptation and mitigation ensures various stakeholders and sectors are involved.

Despite
having intertwined objectives, the two practices were initially framed and have
largely been pursued separately, leading to a lack of effectiveness and
efficiency in concerted climate change actions.

Any attempts
to link the two interventions have been through a complementary approach
whereby if mitigation is the main intervention, a project ensures there are
adaptation co-benefits alongside. But according to Dr Lalisa Duguma and his
colleagues from the ASB Partnership at
the World Agroforestry Centre,
these attempts are only halfway through the journey to effectively address the
problem.

The
study describes two forms of synergy: i) Additivesynergy where in our case, the
outcome would be realized from the individual independent effects of the
mitigation and adaptation interventions; and ii) Non-additive synergy that can further be achieved in three categories,
but here we focus on the super additive
category that would be achieved if the outcome from interactions between the
two interventions is greater than that gained from having the interventions act
independent of each other. In this case, ‘the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts.’

Synergy in mitigation and adaptation measures allows for use of resources that are related and complementary, particularly in the land use sector where the resource is limited in certain regions such as in the developing nations.“We
recommend the super-additive synergy
model in climate change as it increases efficiency, and it is cost effective. It
takes advantage of the fact that resources involved in mitigation and
adaptation measures are related and complementary, particularly in the
land use sector where the resource is limited in certain regions like in the
developing nations,” says Dr Duguma.

­

He
further explains that the model is a step forward from the co-benefit based
complementary approach as it targets to address priority problems of a
particular area through a system-wide overhaul lens.

Synergy
gives critical attention to system integrity and functionality necessitating
the involvement of various stakeholders and sectors in an effort to reduce the
possible tradeoffs due to their varying activities. This is in contrast with
the top-down approach of having mitigation and adaptation complement with one being
a co-benefit of the other.

Agroforestry
and climate smart agriculture are among given examples of avenues to pursue synergy
in agricultural landscapes, while those with a complementary approach would be
in instances where a forest is established/conserved to sequester carbon or
reduce emissions due to deforestation, but with other benefits of regulating
climate and or being a habitat for wildlife.

Achieving mitigation-adaptation synergy

Dr
Peter Minang’, a co-author in the study notes that the study developed four
elements needed to move from complementarity to synergy.

First,
there is need to identify practices
such as agroforestry that have strong interconnectedness of adaptation and
mitigation; then move to understanding
the processes needed to activate synergy such as having the right
institutions and funding mechanisms in place, as well as involving various
stakeholders.

Another
measure involves addressing tradeoffs
between mitigation and adaptation. This is best illustrated in a case where
tree species used in reforestation consume a lot of water, limiting availability
of the commodity to the surrounding communities.

Lastly,
national and local policies that
provide a framework to actualize these measures and give necessary incentives
for private sector and community involvement are proposed as the basis for actualizing
synergy in a holistic, system-wide approach.

In
Tanzania, the Ngitili system, a
national intervention to deal with desertification through tree regeneration
and conservation is one example where climate change has been addressed through
a multifunctional approach without looking at the intervening efforts as either
being mitigation or adaptation. The system has also had significant economic
benefits to the local communities. Read
more here.

“We
can realize synergy in adaptation and mitigation at a global scale, however
certain challenges have to be addressed,” says Dr Meine van Noordwijk, who is
also a co-author in the study. These challenges include the current
international framing of mitigation and adaptation as separate interventions,
the view that mitigation is the best way to achieve adaptation, the lack of
proper methodologies for analyzing the synergy approach, and uncertainties on
which practices can be optimized to give maximum synergy benefits. He is quick to add though that these are
challenges to be addressed through continuous dialogue at global, national and
subnational policy levels and increased research studies on the subject.

Maps of tree cover that were used for developing schemes to reduce
emissions from deforestation and degradation have errors. It’s all about scale
and pixels, say
Betha Lusiana and colleagues

By Robert Finlayson

The ability of any scheme to meet its
national target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation plus conservation (REDD+) requires understanding how its
processes are linked across scales, from local through provincial to national
and international levels. A single approach to reduce deforestation that is
effective for a project in several villages might not be as effective at an
aggregated level, such as a district.

Accordingly, scale must be addressed in REDD+
schemes, including highly technical activities such as satellite mapping of
vegetation cover. This is a critical feature, since knowing how the amount of
carbon stock in the form of vegetation, of what type, and how it changes over
time determines payments to local people for preserving, adding to, or
depleting the stock.

Having a good carbon map is important for
being able to monitor carbon being sequestered or emitted over time. For
incentive schemes, having a map that fits closely to the reality on the ground is
also important. Developing emission maps requires information in the form of
land-cover maps and aboveground carbon stocks for every land-use type in the
landscape. However, both types of information have errors and uncertainty. For example, when looking at a satellite
image, rubber agroforests can be visually mistaken for natural forests (even in
the field it can be difficult for untrained eyes to tell them apart) and the
amount of carbon stock in each type of tree cover can vary substantially, which
means that when changes to the stock are monitored and aligned with payments
for preservation, enhancement or reduction of said stock, there could be large
errors and hence incorrect payments.

To address this, we set out to identify an
appropriate resolution for mapping carbon stock in a REDD+ scheme. This work
was part of a study we conducted—discussed more fully in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change—to design effective emission-reduction activities in
Tanjung Jabung Barat (a high-emission district in Jambi province, Indonesia)
that can be implemented by the district government.

The study of resolution accuracy involved
two steps. First, we developed emission maps for the district that identified changes
in aboveground carbon stocks between 2000 and 2009. The maps included calculations
that allowed for uncertainty caused by errors in land-cover-map classifications
and the variation of carbon, representing the many possible carbons stored in a
similar-size plot of a given type of vegetation. Second, we calculated
estimates of emissions based on various resolutions from the maps developed in
step 1.

From this process, we were able to propose
an appropriate scale for monitoring emissions from land-use changes: for anThe effect of scale on hot spots of carbon emissions in Tanjung Jabung Barat, Jambi, Indonesia, between 2000 and 2009. Pixel resolution of 100 m equals pixel area of 1 ha and pixel resolution of 1000 m equals pixel area of 1 km2. Source: World Agroforestacceptable error of 5% (to put it another way: 95% accuracy), planners should
use an emissions map with pixel resolution of 1000 m, equal to a pixel
size of 1 km2.

We compared this with a map developed by planners in
Tanjung Jabung Barat, who had been involved in a participatory planning process
with communities, businesses and government agencies to come up with ways of
reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and found that the schemes they had in mind
would be served well by a map with resolution of 1 km2.

Study develops an analytical framework of enabling conditions necessary for synergies between mitigation and adaptation

By Elizabeth Kahurani

The
new IPCC
report calls for “sustainable-development
trajectories that combine adaptation and mitigation to reduce climate change
and its impacts."

Indeed,
it is becoming more apparent that linking mitigation and adaptation is a more
effective and efficient approach to climate change. Discussions at UN climate
talks are heavy on the benefits of synergy; and climate finance mechanisms are
increasingly looking for projects with linkages to both.

A field extension officer (middle) explains cacao agroforestry farming methods in Cameroon. Findings of a new study show that in developing countries, institutional setup is an area with strong potential for synergy between mitigation and adaptationGiven
that initial framing has had the two elements working in parallel, there is
need to identify where there exists strong potential to actualize harmony
needed to optimize strengths and benefits of mitigation and adaptation
approaches.

“After
a comprehensive review of publications on climate change integration,
particularly those on mitigation and adaptation, it was clear that these four
conditions are crucial for countries to move towards synergy,” says Dr Duguma.

Overall,
the countries had strongest potential for synergy between mitigation and
adaptation on institution setup, mainly because countries had committees to
work on national level climate change strategies and also to participate and
ensure compliance to mutual climate agreements and submissions to international
conventions. Moreover, two thirds of the countries surveyed had programs
dealing with both mitigation and adaptation.

The
countries were found to be weak on the potential to finance both strategies
simultaneously and to develop policies. “This weak link in potential could be
because most of these countries are in the early stages of developing policies
on climate change and normally funding/budget allocation is informed by already
existing policies. Moreover, majority of these countries are almost entirely
dependent on multilateral funding, most of which is given for mitigation
activities,” explains Susan Wambugu, a co-author in the study.

A
comparative assessment between the countries showed interesting variations,
with middle-income countries having strong potential to synergy. “Other studies
that we have done show that these fast growing economies exhibit strong
potential for synergy as they want to boost their image to be seen as
responsible global citizens; also to maintain credibility and attract more climate
funding,” says Dr Meine vanNoordwijk who was part of the study. Strong
potential was also identified with countries exposed to high climate change
vulnerability such as the small island states. “Having been among the most
affected by climate change already, these countries have no much option but to
take on adaptation even as they implement mitigation approaches,” Dr
vanNoordwijk explains.

Other
least developed countries had a weak potential score for synergy. According to
the authors, this is contrary to expectations given that they are also among
high climate risk countries and they are strong proponents for adaptation in
international policy debates. However, the study is quick to point out that limited
large-scale programs within which they implement climate objectives could
explain the tendency seen in these countries.

Further
analysis of the synergy score against development and environmental indices
such as GDP, Human Development Index, and Environmental Performance Index (EPI)
confirm the findings of the study. “Among the countries studied, Indonesia and
Jamaica are exceptional on this assessment. Indonesia for example has an
independent body reporting directly to the office of the president. Such institutional
measures with political will and commitment have largely contributed to a high
EPI score for the country,” says Dr Peter Minang, one of the study co-authors.
“ A similar trend is seen among least developed countries, with countries like Malawi
and Ghana emerging with strong synergy potential scores in an environment where
the governments have made deliberate efforts to integrate development and
climate strategies,” he says.

As
climate change discussions focus on ways to generate meaningful impact from
actions to deal with the challenge, this framework and evidence presented is
among pioneer studies that governments and practitioners could benefit from in
an endeavor to gain lost opportunities from the previous siloed approach to
mitigation and adaptation and embrace far more beneficial avenues of a synergy
approach.

“With
the push for global climate communities towards synergies between mitigation
and adaptation measures in order to effectively address climate change, it is
important that the necessary enabling conditions be known and made to use. This
paper is therefore the first attempt to come up with such key elements to
promote synergies particularly from developing countries context” Says Dr. Duguma.

Enabling
conditions with their respective indicators used to determine countries’
synergy potentials

Enabling conditions

Indicators used for
each of the enabling conditions for synergy

Policies and Strategies

Does the country have a climate policy that addresses both
M+A?

Is there a common climate strategy/action plan for both
M+A?

Has the country submitted NAMA (Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Actions)/REDD+

R-PP (Readiness Preparation Proposal) and/or NAPA to the
UNFCCC?

Institutional arrangements

Is there a national-level committee addressing both M+A

Is there an implementing body
(institution/agency/department/unit) addressing M+A together?

Internal migrants in Indonesia have
shifted land arrangements, resulting in both social and ecological damage: land
conflicts increase along with deforestation. This complex relationship has been
underplayed in the REDD debate, say Gamma Galudra,
Meine van Noordwijk, Putra Agung, Suyanto and Ujjwal Pradhan

By Masayu Vinanda

Conflicting claims over land
ownership have occurred in most parts of Indonesia, according to Gamma
Galudra and colleagues, writing in Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. They describe one such
conflict and its implications for reducing emissions from deforestation and
degradation (REDD) in Senyerang village, Tanjung Jabung Barat district, Jambi
province on the island of Sumatra.

Agroforest on peat in Tanjung Jabung Barat. Photo: World Agroforestry CentreThe recent background to the
conflict in Senyerang starts in 1997, when the Ministry of Forestry granted a
permit for a pulp-and-paper company to expand its concession area. About 1500
people—long-settled migrants from other parts of Indonesia—protested over the rights
to the land in question, resulting in one person shot dead and two wounded. The
migrants argued that the area was their communal land that had been used by the
Banjar people since the 1920s. A land licence granted by the pesirah (the chief of the territory),
active since the Dutch colonial period, was used as their advocacy tool.
However, the company did not stop the conversion and continued planting the
area with acacia.

The Senyerang situation clearly demonstrated
the tenurial interaction between a group of migrants and a concession-holding
company. However, interaction between the migrants and the government
institution that issued the permit to the company was also part of the problem.
Historical, informal negotiations between the pesirah and the migrants dated back many years and provided a more
comprehensive context.

In their study, Galudra and his team
analysed relations between four key groups: the state, local communities,
migrants and state-sanctioned concession holders in the peat forests of the
district to reveal complex, ‘underlying land ownership, power struggles and
strategic positioning among stakeholders across scales’. Those three aspects are crucial to the
effectiveness of any REDD scheme in the district, they argued.

Inhabited by approximately 280,000
people, nearly half of the population of the district are migrants from other
parts of Indonesia. Practically, the district is divided into two parts: the
inland villages on mineral soil inhabited by people from western and northern
Sumatra; and the lowland peatland inhabited by Malay people from Riau. Peatland
occupies 40% of the district and half of the land is state domain, with the
largest area classified as ‘production forest’.

In the 1970s, the Ministry of
Agriculture issued concessions to log the forests, leaving behind huge
logged-over areas in many parts of the region. These areas were easily
accessed, thanks to the roads built for timber extraction, which resulted in
further land clearing, particularly for oil-palm and pulp-and-paper
plantations. Fifteen years later, the Forest Allotment Consensus provided a
stronger legal basis to issue more permits.

‘Both permit regimes marginalized
migrants and local communities’, said Galudra. ‘Interaction began between
migrants and local communities in the form of land sales. Local communities sold
land—to which they might have had customary but not state-sanctioned rights—to groups
of migrants who expanded the crop area. Those migrant-controlled areas would
sometimes then be occupied by customary landowners who claimed that the land belonged
to them. To resolve the conflict, the migrants had to undertake a second
transaction, paying extra amounts to the customary landowners’.

Additionally, interaction between
migrants and local communities resulted in changing how land was used. For
instance, one migrant group, the Banjar, had much experience in clearing and
draining peat forests, land which was then transferred to the pesirah (the chief of the territory).

‘The local people of the district lacked
this knowledge’, said Galudra, ‘but the Banjar people were able to extend the
village’s claims over territory in the peatland. The migrants did this to build
a better relationship with the locals. The clearing was seen as an initial
investment in easier access for all to use the land’.

Often, an even more complex situation
appears when analyzing interactions between migrants and the private sector. Competing
claims over land between migrants, local communities and private concessions
arose owing to changing policies after decentralization took place, affecting
the power relations between the central and local governments. For example, local
people and migrants understood that the land they claimed was classified as ‘non-forest
area’, a belief justified by such a designation in the District Spatial Plan of
1993. However, private companies believed the area was classified as ‘conversion
production forest’ as shown in the records of the central government’s 1985
Forest Allotment Consensus. The conflicting land-use policies have seen an
increase in concession permits and the status of forests changed to ‘conversion
production forest’ to meet the demand for expansion by the palm-oil and
pulp-and-paper industries.

Galudra and team argue that examining
the complexities of tenurial interaction—particularly how migrants balance
power with local communities, businesses and government authorities at the
local level—will help ensure an effective implementation of REDD.

Clear and secure land and forest
ownership is required if any progress is to be made. If forest or land tenure insecurity
has been resolved, there is no doubt that the benefits or incentives generated
from REDD initiatives can then be equally and fairly distributed.

Lack of understanding
of peat is not the weakest link in the chain, say Meine van Noordwijk and colleagues

By Amy C. Cruz

The high emissions
of greenhouse gases from tropical peatlands caused by changing their land use have
become a problem for policymakers that they can no longer deny, as their own
scientists have now confirmed what external critics told before.

Researchers at the World Agroforestry Centre Indonesia are assessing the viability of rubber agroforestry on peat. Photo: World Agroforestry CentreThe
emissions need to be reduced to mitigate the effects of climate change but
because of the complex issues involved, governments, societies and private businesses are still ‘muddling along’ when it
comes to conserving peatlands. The peat models we have so far are as clear as mud.

Given the
urgency and political sensitivity, peat and peatlands have become an
interesting test ground for understanding the chain that links knowledge with
action. Who needs to know, who can act and where is knowledge the weakest link
in the chain's limiting action?

Such a ‘knowledge
value-chain for peatland conservation’ can trace steps from fundamental
understanding of peatlands all the way to multilevel actions towards
conservation and reduction of emissions.

‘We found
that there are four separate parts of an overall knowledge value-chain concept
that links fundamental understanding to action’, said Meine van Noordwijk, leading a team of authors in a
recent publication in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, ‘and there are several weak links
that need to be strengthened in a complex chain. Coordinated research and
action is needed to achieve positive policy actions and behaviour changes.”

The research team had looked at how people’s understanding,
willingness, ability and actions towards peatland conservation have progressed over
time. Understanding peat and its processes was the first section in the value chain,
including the fundamental point of agreeing on the definitions of ‘peat’ and ‘peatland’
so that they can be correctly identified and assigned more attention, if
necessary.

Towards
this, different studies had been carried out to develop more accurate ways of
quantifying and attributing emissions from peatlands and yet there was still
room for improvement, especially because peatlands are variable by nature, making
it hard to ensure accurate measurements. In addition, different land uses on
peat also result in differences in emissions.

‘Hard
science may seem easy compared to what it takes to get a globally agreed set of
default values that can be used for transparent emissions’ accounting’, said Dr van Noordwijk.

The second
section of the chain is the willingness to act to reduce emissions. For
example, in the past, policymakers could not ignore the problem of smoke haze caused
by peatland conversion because its effect on visibility was too obvious.
Conversion without use of fire seemed an acceptable alternative. The invisible
carbon emissions from the conversion and drainage itself could be ignored. However, when emission estimates, mostly from peat drainage and
fires, identified Indonesia as the third-largest
emitter of greenhouse gases there were hardly any Indonesian scientists who had experience and data
to challenge or corroborate the claims.

‘Now that
weak link has been strengthened, as
is evident by the four
papers by Indonesian scientists in the REDD-ALERT
special issue. Indonesian policymakersnow acknowledge the importance of
reducing emissions from peatland as part of the broader debate’, said Dr van
Noordwijk.

But
willingness to act is not enough. Third, relevant authorities need to be able
to influence companies and people to actually reduce emissions. While peatland
conversion appeared to be attractive to companies because it brought less
conflict with local people and their land-right claims
than conversion elsewhere, peatland use now gives oil-palm companies a bad name internationally and potentially affects their
sales. Where the long process of issuing permits has already started, however,
it is not easy for a local government to stop the conversion and reverse permits.
Players at this level need to be aware of how emission reductions are
calculated and valued. Local governments need to secure jobs and revenue, so
alternative scenarios need to meet their expectations.

The fourth section
of the chain is formed by farmers and their communities living in or near
peatlands. Slowing current conversion and redirecting land-use changes without
alternatives that provide improved livelihoods for local people is not
attractive for any policymaker.

‘There are
not yet sufficiently viable, alternative uses of peatlands that do not
contribute to higher emissions but provide for local incomes and livelihoods’,
said Dr van Noordwijk. ‘Thus, the primary focus for this section of the chain needs
to be on testing and improving the various locally developed solutions, such as
agroforestry involving locally adapted trees for which a market exists’.

Looking
over the whole length of the knowledge chain, Dr van Noordwijk and colleagues conclude that progress has been made in the first three sections but
peatland countries, such as Indonesia, and international supporters now have to
focus on improving the fourth section.

‘If good
science, accurate numbers, a willingness and ability to act on emission
estimates are not accompanied by viable alternatives for local livelihoods then
the ultimate goal of reducing emissions cannot be achieved,’ conclude Dr van Noordwijk
and the research team.

Decisions by women can lead to
more changes in land use because of their willingness to accept offers from
outsiders. To avoid deforestation, the value of natural ecosystems needs to be
instilled

By Tess Beyer

Indonesia is the world’s third
largest producer of greenhouse gas, with 85% of its emissions coming from the
destruction of natural forests, the main driver of which in the 21st
century is industrial-scale, export-oriented agriculture, such as palm-oil
producing monocultures.

Women’s land-use decisions might increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Photo: World Agroforestry Centre/Noviana KhususiyahThe conversion of forests to
other land uses typically has dramatic effects not only on the landscape but on
the lives of humans who interacted with the forest. Those effects can be
different for men and women and could lead to more greenhouse-gas emissions if
women make the decisions, according to a study by Grace Villamor and colleagues in the forest margins of the province of
Jambi on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia.

‘Changing a landscape alters the
roles of the humans who have previously related to it in perhaps traditional
ways developed over generations’, said Dr Villamor, ‘including various rights
of use, which can be different for men and women’.

To help contextualise the recent
changes in Sumatran land use and cover, the role gender played was examined.
Specifically, the researchers wanted to know what influence a person’s gender
had on the willingness to adopt alternative land uses. They used role-play
games with local residents to assess their responses to new land-use
opportunities, some of which might increase, rather than decrease, the emission
of greenhouse gases.

Divided into men-only and
women-only groups, the games showed that rapid land-use change occurred when women
responded positively to external investors and in doing so out-performed men in
meeting income targets. Women managed to negotiate bids up to three times
higher than the set price for changing land uses to more profitable ones, such
as converting higher carbon-stocked old rubber agroforests to lower
carbon-stocked oil-palm plantations. This occurred even more rapidly when faced
with shocks or stressors, such as forest fires, population increases and fluctuations
in commodity prices.

Further, women from upland areas
perceived rubber agroforests as economically superior to natural forests
because they provided both conservation and financial benefits. In their eyes
(in the context of the game), changing forests to agroforests carried no
perceived environmental or income risks.

On the other hand, in the game the
men from upland areas left their forests intact. This conservation perspective was
probably shaped by the value of timber they collected plus a strong sense of
stewardship formed during their long association with various organisations,
such as the World Agroforestry Centre.

In the game, the men often made
use of a double subsidy from a non-governmental organization and a government agricultural
agency to conserve their agroforests. They used the subsidies throughout the
game to continuously add to their agroforestry allotment.

This conservation perspective
held true for men from the lowlands as well, who had witnessed the reality of
mining degrading the environment without providing long-term wealth. Because of
this, most were reluctant at first to deal in the game with an agent
representing a coal mine.

For Dr Villamor and colleagues,
it was clear from the results of the game that the women’s chosen pathways of
land-use changes would lead to substantial carbon losses and increased
greenhouse gas emissions. Extrapolating from this, if women were to have
greater involvement in landscape-level decision-making then activities might be
necessary that built awareness of the value of ecosystem services. Women’s
established skills as entrepreneurs and traders of goods and services from
forests and agroforests could also be developed in a positive direction that
supported the conservation of treed landscapes.

According to the researchers, more
explicit attention should be paid to the different responses offered by men and
women of drivers of both deforestation and conservation.

Any government program that aims
to modify land-use decisions needs to adopt a gender-balanced approach.
Environmental protection cannot thrive unless women and men both see the net
benefit.

REDD is globally supported as a
cost-effective mitigation option for developing countries to achieve mitigation
and sustainable socioeconomic development. But is REDD pro-poor simply because
it targets developing countries? A recent study seeking to answer this question
was recently published in Applied Geography under the authorship of Joanes
Atela and Peter Minang both of ASB-Partnerships for the Tropical forest Margin.
The study draws evidence from Kenya to show how vulnerability linked to
poverty, influences the spatial choices of REDD project investors and analyses
the factors that might influence the ability of communities to access REDD
investments.

The study found that a majority of
REDD projects in Kenya are hosted in relatively low-vulnerability areas where
socioeconomic conditions favour the interests of for-profit project developers.
The study provides food for thought for the UNFCCC debates on REDD that have,
over time, coined a generic notion that REDD is pro-poor simply because it
targets developing countries, Therefore beyond the ‘developing country’ tag,
business interest ensues and this interest conflicts the pro-poor notion of a
‘global REDD’ potentially denying relatively vulnerable communities, with
mitigation potential, a chance to participate and benefit from REDD funds.

The study acknowledges the ease
of implementing REDD in less vulnerable areas but also reveals that vulnerable
areas such as dry-land ecosystems, with mitigation potential, may present some
opportunities for REDD in terms of enhanced recognition of impact and low
opportunity. Thereby by directing REDD funds to relatively vulnerable areas,
projects and national REDD policies are likely to enhance synergies between
mitigation and adaptation’.

The study suggests that REDD
should adopt a pro-active approach to implementation in which projects do not
only target to benefit from existing well developed systems but also aim to
streamline resource governance in relatively vulnerable settings.

The study specifically recommends
that emerging concepts such as reducing emission from all land uses (REALU) and
the landscape approach provide opportunities for vulnerable communities to
access REDD funds/projects and create synergies between mitigation and
adaptation